[Geowanking] Critical Theory

[Brian Grant]

Now you're talking - database views - are our ubiquitous tool for 
storing and retrieving multi-dimensional data.

the map is not the territory but a database built on a recursive spatial 
index can be a very useful model.

I don't think you're being too simplistic at all.


  - Brian Grant


Alan Keown wrote:
> Maybe if we change the semantics and talk of maps as views (in SQL terms)
> instead of models. Whenever anyone looks at a map they don't want to see
> everything everywhere - even if they do the brain can't comprehend that
> much. 
> 
> So then the problem of delivering custom maps becomes one of creating custom
> views filtered on extent and content. 
> 
> If we start with masses of "raw" data, each element tagged with the entity
> it represents then an aggregation becomes a view resulting from a
> generalisation algorithm applied to the "raw" data in a similar manner to
> that in which raw words garnered by a web crawler becomes a set of search
> terms.
> 
> If we had a metamodel and the appropriate ontologies for "tagging" the raw
> data then we would have the basics for building a semantic geoweb - or am I
> being too simplistic?  
> 
> Cheers
> AlanK
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: geowanking-bounces at lists.burri.to
> [mailto:geowanking-bounces at lists.burri.to] On Behalf Of
> Sean.Gorman at fortiusone.com
> Sent: Thursday, 3 July 2008 10:41 AM
> To: geowanking at lists.burri.to
> Subject: Re: [Geowanking] Critical Theory
> 
> 
> Interesting points Alan and Landon, and I agree we have a long way to go
> handle the masses of geodata that exist today and the additional masses that
> will be available tomorrow (when Landon's next gen GPS comes to pass).  
> 
> Maps are inherently models or abstractions of reality (despite our
> acceleration towards mirror worlds).  In many ways this gets back to Renee's
> MAUP problem - one of the easiest way to abstract data is to aggregate it to
> larger units (census tracts, zip codes, counties etc.).  While the promise
> of always working at the raw data level is tantalizing we are still a long
> ways off of that on the GeoWeb.
> 
> If we look at the limits of KML file size support in Virtual Earth and
> Google Maps today it is roughly around 2mbs.  There are limits of what you
> can handle in memory and limits on how much data you can render on the map.
> So, while you could conceivably have massive spatial databases of
> information your ability to serve up that data and make it consumable by the
> public is still severely limited.  Just think about how hard it is to
> display an average size GIS data file in a GeoWeb application, especially a
> browser based application.    
> 
> The GeoWeb has done a great job dealing with points of interest and
> segmenting them into manageable chunks, but I agree with Landon that going
> the next step is going to take an incredible amount of work.  Although it is
> definitely work worth doing.  I believe the upside will dwarf what we've
> done with mostly local point data to date.
> 
> 
> 
> FortiusOne Inc,
> 2200 Wilson Blvd. suite 307
> Arlington, VA 22201
> cell - 202-321-3914
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Geowanking mailing list
> Geowanking at lists.burri.to
> http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG. 
> Version: 8.0.134 / Virus Database: 270.4.4/1531 - Release Date: 7/2/2008 7:02 PM